Is All-Brawl the future competitive standard?

[kr3wman]

Wow.

A bob-bomb appeared in the middle of Falco's Dthrow and killed him?

LIKE WTF.

 

[ftl]

Ok, so here's a time for a post about randomness in games, which was posted before but seems to have been forgotten....

I quite agree - it is POSSIBLE to have a good competitive game with luck in it. Poker is fine. Lots of card games can be played competitively, and work out fine. There's plenty of examples.

However, if you look at them more closely, the better players always win. How is that possible?

Well, the main way is by having the games go long enough. The longer a game is played, the more a match tends to average out. If you're playing just one hand of poker, who wins the game is all luck (though not how much they win by). If you're playing two hands, its still mostly luck. If you play 1000 - well, by 1000, the luck will have mostly averaged out - the better player will have lost less when he has bad hands and won more when he has good hands and even bluffed his way to some wins when he had bad hands, and it's MUCH more likely that the better player will win over 1000 hands than over 2. THAT'S why luck is fine in competitive games - when done right, it matters a whole lot less than it seems, because games go long enough for both players to have ups or downs. Though it still matters, of course, especially when players are very close in skill.

Smash simply takes too long to play for that level of luck to be average out. There was exactly ONE random explosion in that second match, and it was on Falco. Perhaps if this had been 99-stock, then over those 99 stocks there'd be 20 random explosions, and 15 would be on one player and 5 on the other, and we'd say that yeah, probably the one who's being exploded more often is just being worse at dodging explosions.

But we're not playing 99-stock. The game is 2-stock, best of five. And so the bob-bombs don't have time to average out, and we're left with the matches we just saw. This is the equivalent of playing six hands of poker, and saying it's a game of skill.

(just out of curiosity, does anyone know - about how many hands does a pro poker player go through at some major poker event? I don't know, I'm not a poker player...)

 

[kingofping4]

Well said, ftl. In the long run, across all players, the luck would average out. But in a tournament setting, we'll say double elimination for the sake of example, you're only guaranteed 6 games in two matches. So for any one player, the luck wouldn't average out until they played in a LOT of tournaments. It's entirely possible that at a single tournament, the same guy could lose 6 straight games by bob-omb spawn.

So by the very nature of competitive smash play, it being a small enough sample size that randomness does not even itself out, items are detrimental.

That said, I still think All-Brawl should be looked into as another way to play. Think of it as the Arena League to SBR's NFL. Essentially the same, but with enough differences to make it it's own separate entity, and able to be enjoyed by those that may not enjoy some aspects of the other.

 

[Dark Sonic]

^^But to try to pass it off as the competitive standard, when in that respect it is strictly inferior, is a laughable notion. To say it is just as well suited for competitive play as our current standard (which involves less luck no matter how you slice it) is just idiotic.

Yes, some people enjoy, and may even prefer all brawl. Yes, it should be played if enough people like it. But even if it were to somehow become the preference of the majority, it would still be less suited for determining who the best player is (due to more randomness, which is inversely correlated to skill), which means it would still be less suited for serious competition. It would be more fun, and if that's what your hoping for (which I think most people are, they're just bad with words) then fine, but that's not what many All-Brawl players have been arguing.

 

[DRaGZ]

Yes, I understand antes and blinds. However, anytime/anywhere I've played poker, if you're not in the blind spot you still get your two cards and choose how to go from there. Those two cards tell you whether or not you want to play this hand, just like the rule set will tell you whether or not you want to play this smash tourney. I agree with you that poker and smash are not the same thing, but I do see little similarities like what I'm pointing out. Do the situations match up 100%? No, but they don't have to. They're just similarities.

The way I see it, both poker and smash come down to three things: predicting your opponent's move, "mindgames"/bluffing/whatever you call it, and the experience to make quick, possibly game-changing decisions. Now I'm not a pro at either game, but these three things are basically universal to all things competitive (except things that are judged by outside parties like gymnastics or figure skating, where mindgames are used differently or not at all).

So when a guy goes all in on the turn, and you know that there's only one possible hand and one possible river card that could beat what you already have, you call. He gets the card, you lose. Nothing you could do about it, you just have to accept it because it's called gambling.

So when you pay your tourney fee for a chance to take home the whole thing, you're gambling too. When that bob-omb spawns in your game-winning smash attack, just think of it like that long-shot river card that beat you in the poker example.

EDIT: When I watched the second link in his post, Marth v Marth on Elden Bridge, I saw nothing there to complain about. Since the topic of the moment seems to be items, I just guessed that was why he said it was "even more wow." What makes that a "wow" match then?

Exactly, so what you're doing with All-Brawl is throwing in the nuts.

EDIT: So this makes me wonder, "What's the point?"

 

[Yuna]

LOL.

you mean touchdown and field goal. homeruns happen in baseball.

hurray for the new pro sport: footsmashbaseball

Oh right, touchdown. I knew "home run" was the wrong term for it but I was too lazy to Google American Football.

No johns? A win is a win, a loss is a loss. It IS like poker in that if you don't think you can win in the current conditions, you don't play. The difference being that in poker you just play another hand, whereas in smash you play another tournament.

Anyone remember when the Cubs fan caught the foul ball instead of the player, and everyone was pissed? Well they didn't ban fans from coming to the games after that.

I can't seem to decipher whether this is pro-Items or anti-Items.

If it's pro: It's not a John to say "This is wholly unfair and ban it". It's analyzing the game and coming to a conclusion.

Stuff.

1) One in, um... what, 100 matches might have a random fan jump in and win one team the game or at least give them 1 extra point. That's one random element in one in 100 matches. With items, every single item spawn in the entire game is random (in some way) and could win either side the match either from the onset or eventually. Oh, someone just grabbed a Bob-omb, winged me with it and cost me 36%. That's 36 friggin' percent! At the end of the match I might not have caught up to that.
2) We don't care if the most skilled player will win. What if the two players are even or close to even? Then it'll be about who has the most luck! And that's not Competitive. Nobody cares if M2K will still win over you, we care if I'll still win over this other guy who I'm evenly matched with, only either of us might lose if the other gets Bob-omb on their heads!
3) Fans are not random, at all. Fans are human beings doing stuff. You will always know that there will be fans ready to pounce on the ball should they have the chance, so you just have to try not to let them. It's kinda like Brinstar. You know there's a pattern to know Brinstar moves, so you adapt. Brinstar is not banned because it's not broken or random. Fans are human beings, not random algorhitms that might change on a moment's notice. So if anything, they could've discussed banning that one fan who felt it necessary to cost a team the victory, not all fans. Also, what he did was against the rules, so I expect he was punished in some way. So it's like a soft ban.

So really, this isn't items at all, this is clearly Stalling. You cannot ban fans from coming to matches, but if a fan starts breaking the rules (Stalling), then you can punish him.
4) This isn't even the same friggin' thing! Refute my example of American Football using items!

Anyways, I still think it's worth looking into. Someone play 100 matches with All-Brawl settings, and count the number of times an explosive spawning during an attack occurs. In fact, we should have like 5-10 people do this to get a good sample size. Don't count explosives that are clearly there that you just run into, only count the ones that spawn DURING an attack animation, making them 100% unavoidable. I bet the numbers are pretty low.

You clearly think is this the only argument we have.

1) Exploding thingies.
2) Broken items (Smash Balls)
3) Randomness in general!

Player A (Me) vs. Player B (You). Let's say that in some cosmic coincidence we're evenly matched (somehow). In a no-items match, we'd fight down to the last stock, last smash. In an items match, a Bob-omb might spawn next to you, you'll use it and hit me, I'll get 36% behind and eventually lose due to not being able to catch up.

Or it might be even more insidious, an item of food spawns next to me, I heal up 3%, we eventually get down to Last stock, Last Smash and both smash each other, you die, but I survive because I have 1% too little to die or I just die later due to having healing up those 3%, we both getting Star KO:ed but you dying earlier. Or you might Smash me, but I survive it due to having healing up on those 3% earlier, recover and eventually kill you, despite the fact that without that 3%, I'd have died.

Or I could just play as any number of characters with broken Final Smashes and kill you with a randomly spawning Final Smash which spawned while you were recovering, dying, respawning or any number of thinks which prevented you from even trying to stop me from getting it.

In Competitive gaming, every single % counts. And every single item in the game (besides the Bumper (which can be broken in its own right), stickers and a few others) inflicts damage. Thus, every single item in the game does decide the outcome of the match.

It's not just a question of skill anymore. It's not even just a question of who can manipulate items to their best advantage (skill). It's largely about luck. Who gets the most good items spawned next to them at the right moments. Who gets the most of the regenerative items? Who gets the most of the strongest items? All of this due to randomness (i.e. luck).

If we could at all times know when, where and what would spawn and every single item would always or at least largely always spawn equally close to both opponents and only while both opponents were completely free to try to get it (i.e., one side is not, say, lagging from an attack, recovering, on the ledge, etc., etc., etc.), then it wouldn't be random. But that's not how it works, now is it?

But like I said before, and I think I speak for the majority of the All-Brawl supporters on this, I'm not trying to force this playstyle onto anyone. All I want is to provide people with more options, and to have those options tested at a competitive level. While no items may be the majority right now, testing and having an open mind might change some opinions.

Hey, we're just saying: It won't catch on for these and these reasons.

Let the new ideas be tested, and if they turn out to be as bad as you think they will you're free to say "I told you so." But at least let it be tried and evaluated, maybe even tweaked along the way, before everyone slams the door on it.

No one's preventing you from testing the new ideas out. We're just telling you why they'll fail.

You don't know **** about poker.

You can't just play another hand because there are BLINDS and ANTES.

Blinds and antes are the same thing. And in Poker, unless you have no more money except that blind left, you always have the choice to let it go and come back for another round. You never lose just because someone got a 4 of a kind.

But that wasn't even the real point. The real point was that all players work at all times to minimize the randomness of Poker (and by Poker, we're all talking about Texas Hold 'Em, I wager).

You pay to get a hand, and getting a hand is mandatory. Even if a tournament doesn't enforce antes, and a lot don't to be honest, then you still can't fold everything because the blinds became way too high way too quickly.

No, but you do not auto-lose the game because of one bad hand. And it's all about choice and working against randomness. Poker is not the least random game out there, but it's not "all about" randomness or anything else people have stated.

In poker, every hand is much more like a positioning change in Brawl except that you have to work to understand what your opponent's positions relative to yours are. That's why placing in poker aren't nearly as consistent as other games: it's all about mental manipulation and understanding, which even the top pros can't consistently do for hours on end. This is why playing poker online sucks ***, btw.

Not the point. The point was that Poker isn't all about randomness.

Now, kingofping4 might "not know **** about Poker" (because he is not arguing that Poker is not all about randomness but quite the opposite), but I'm just making it clear here what was being debated.

Exactly. That's inextricable from the game of poker; of course, you still try to minimize the effect of luck by playing enough hands that the luck will average out. But you can't remove the random chance of somebody getting lucky from poker, because of the way the game is set up. Because it's fundamentally a gambling game.

You CAN, however, MOSTLY remove it from Smash, because it's not inherently a gambling game.

I think we're agreed. You want to gamble so you can go play all-brawl or poker, we want to play a competitive fighting game so we'll play SBR-brawl, where there aren't long-shot river cards.

'
Exactly, Poker is high stakes gambling where the world's best player could (and have) lost due to randomness (a random BS River).

Also, in Poker, you can play at least 100 or so hands before you lose due to blinds alone. In Smash, not so much.

If you want high stakes gambling, go with Poker. Just because Poker is high stakes gambling does not mean Smash has to be.

I brought up the example of High Stakes Gambling American Football. I see kingofping4 has yet to reply to that. Tell me, King, would you like to see items in American Football?

Yes, I understand antes and blinds. However, anytime/anywhere I've played poker, if you're not in the blind spot you still get your two cards and choose how to go from there. Those two cards tell you whether or not you want to play this hand, just like the rule set will tell you whether or not you want to play this smash tourney. I agree with you that poker and smash are not the same thing, but I do see little similarities like what I'm pointing out. Do the situations match up 100%? No, but they don't have to. They're just similarities.

Blah, blah, Poker is Poker, Smash is Smash. All-Brawl American Football. Defend it and then I'll entertain the notion that comparing Smash to Poker is valid.

The way I see it, both poker and smash come down to three things: predicting your opponent's move, "mindgames"/bluffing/whatever you call it, and the experience to make quick, possibly game-changing decisions. Now I'm not a pro at either game, but these three things are basically universal to all things competitive (except things that are judged by outside parties like gymnastics or figure skating, where mindgames are used differently or not at all).

So when a guy goes all in on the turn, and you know that there's only one possible hand and one possible river card that could beat what you already have, you call. He gets the card, you lose. Nothing you could do about it, you just have to accept it because it's called gambling.

In Poker, you can calculate that there is only one River card that could lose you the game. Going all-in in turn and losing due to it is more like thinking "If I Smash him with this Smash, I'll win, but if he blocks it, he can retaliate and kill me". It's a calculated risk... a risk you can make on your own. The choice is in your hands

In All-Brawl, you cannot make that choice. You will not know when, where and what items will spawn. So unless you're going to live in constant fear of that catastrophically bad (for you) River card constantly throughout the entire match, then, no, it's not the same thing.

So when you pay your tourney fee for a chance to take home the whole thing, you're gambling too.

No, which is why it is legal. It's not gambling to pay a fee to enter a competition. It's... paying a fee to enter a competition, which is why MLG (I believe you have to pay to enter their tournaments? I could be wrong) is allowed to even exist.

You're not gambling, you're putting money on the line on the off-hand chance that you are the best or one of the best players in attendance and thus eligible for prize money. It's not gambling since it's not at all due to chance, it's due to whoever's the best/2nd best/3rd best and so on and so on (and by best, that does include "being able to play against all characters and people", if you lose to X-player/Y-character, yet someone else you can beat wins against them, then they're clearly better than you for that instance and deserved to place better than you.

When that bob-omb spawns in your game-winning smash attack, just think of it like that long-shot river card that beat you in the poker example.

So every time I attack in the game, I have to live in constant fear of that longshot River card instead of in Poker where I will know at all times how to minimize those chances and how every single time I take that chance, it'll be a calculated risk entirely up to me (unless I have no more money)?

Please reply to my post about All-Brawl American Football and why, by your own logic, it wouldn't be a great idea!

 

[Yuna]

Since kingofping4 decided to ignore my perfectly valid analogy, I'll repost it 'til he actually replies to it in some way:
Just because there's a little luck in Competitive gaming does not mean we should throw in a manure-load more of it!

You wanna compare Competitive Smash to totally unrelated Competitive games? Fine. American Football. At set intervalls (which fluctuate slightly) random items will spawn at one (determined randomly) of several predetermined spots on the field. You will never known which item will spawn (but there will be odds) and where it will spawn.

And by spawn, I mean dropped from the air above them by special Item Referees in hot air baloons.

At any given time, someone might lose that clear touchdown due to a banana peel conveniently "spawning" right next to his foot. A small explosive devise (no permanent damage) might drop down on someone and incapaticate them. Heck, vials of performance enhancing drugs (Smash Balls) might falll next to you! Not to mention the Dragoon Ball which is really an extra football in a gatling gun which is pretty much a guaranteed towntouch (it counts as long as it passes the fork-thingie) as long as you don't miss with it (and how can you? There's a sniper scope!).

Heck, there are even Assist Fans and Assist Pros (Pokéballs and Assist Trophies) who might at any given time "spawn" onto the field and help either side. All-Brawl American Football for the Superbowl!

 

[The Real Inferno]

Playing on these rules I managed to stay entirely invincible in a ROB vs. Wolf matchup, winning the games on Wario Ware with invincibility award and getting the smash ball. I barely took damage (at the beginning of the match). Tell me how that was even remotely fair to an opponent to get completely gayed over by random *** ****? What if they are a better player than me? It didn't matter, as ROB they couldn't even hit me during my final smash and I was able to go get items to use in conjuncture with it if I chose (ROB's final smash with a fan is ********). They had no hope of beating an opponent who spent almost the entire match completely invulnerable to all knockback and damage.

 

[Yuna]

Playing on these rules I managed to stay entirely invincible in a ROB vs. Wolf matchup, winning the games with invincibility award and getting the smash ball. I barely took damage (at the beginning of the match). Tell me how that was even remotely fair to an opponent to get completely gayed over by random *** ****? What if they are a better player than me? It didn't matter, as ROB they couldn't even hit me during my final smash and I was abale to go get items to use in conjuncture with it if I chose. They had no hope of beating an opponent who spent almost the entire match completely invulnerable to all knockback and damage.

But it's more "fun" to play, and above all, fun to watch for the spectators!

 

[The Real Inferno]

But it's more "fun" to play, and above all, fun to watch for the spectators!

Misfortune is always fun to watch.

 

[-Mars-]

Wow, I never imagined this thread having so much discussion in it. I figured it would be written off as soon as anyone saw the word item and we would leave it at that.

 

[hippyman69]

Wow, I never imagined this thread having so much discussion in it. I figured it would be written off as soon as anyone saw the word item and we would leave it at that.

Well, it seems pro-item ******* don't understand that items skew the outcome of the match and can't think of anyway that they can screw someone over. it's like they are 3 year olds that don't understand the concept of CHANCE!!

if i star-KO someone and a smash ball appears next to me (ok shut up fools, maybe it wont be exactly like this, but something similar WILL happen), i just have to hit it twice while you are in the background. then im ready to take your next stock if im say, marth. you are pretty much guaranteed another stock lost simply because you DIED. that is in no way fair. it is UNLUCKY!!! you just lost a final and as a result money because the other guy got lucky. this could happen to anyone and unless you are playing 100stock matches, which you cant, (yes this argument has been used b4 but its true) then it will not even out.

 

[Yuna]

Don't forget the ridiculous notion that Double Elimination is super-random.

 

[IvanEva]

Hippyman69: "Anti-item *******"? "Shut up fools"? Please go back to Gamefaqs.

Us pro-item guys are saying that we accept the risk that the item luck factor creates and wish to compete for money with these settings. They are closer to "real" Brawl, more entertaining (at least for us), and still result in the more skilled player winning.

Double elimination is as random as items and just as influencial. Yes, the players that are clearly better will always come out on top. Everybody else has a very good chance to get screwed over by brackets (and from what I've heard that's the most common complaint at tournaments).

 

[Yuna]

Us pro-item guys are saying that we accept the risk that the item luck factor creates and wish to compete for money with these settings.

That's all great for you, but you do not speak for all Itemnites. So many of "you guys" are arguing that randomness is OK or that Items On isn't random or whatever. If you personally acknowledge that it's random but accept the risk, then I'm not going to argue against you because that's your prejorative, however.

So we have nothing to debate. However, this doesn't mean there isn't a slew of people out there (and several in this thread) not content with just saying "Fine, it's random. But I like it!".

They are closer to "real" Brawl, more entertaining (at least for us), and still result in the more skilled player winning.

I'm sorry, "real" Brawl? What is "real Brawl"? The default settings? Then why aren't you guys playing 2 minutes Time with no unlockable characters with all items on with only the default uplocked stages? Who are you to say what "real" Brawl is?

This is one of the most inane arguments ever; "Items are legit because they're on by default!" or "Creator intent!". Nobody cares what Sakurai thinks or what he sets as default. You want to know what Sakurai thinks and what Sakurai thinks "real" Brawl is? It's however we like to play it.

Just because it's on by default doesn't mean it's more "real" or even legit.

Double elimination is as random as items and just as influencial.

I see you managed to reiterate this bovine manure without quoting my previous post on this or replying to any of the things I brought up.

Yes, the players that are clearly better will always come out on top. Everybody else has a very good chance to get screwed over by brackets (and from what I've heard that's the most common complaint at tournaments).

We seed. This is what seeding is for. If we don't seed and it's random, then it's random seeding, but the results are not random. With items, the results can and often will be random.

We seed for a reason. If someone is getting a low seed, then they're probably not very good. And nobody really cares about really, really accurate results among the Bottom 75% of tournaments. We seed the best followed by the really good followed by the goods. The rests get crappy seeds.

How do you get crappy seeds? By not being a good player or by being an unknown player (because what are we, psychic?).

If people know how good you are and you deserve a high seed, then you get a high seed.

And still, not random. It's only random if the TOs just hit the Random Seed button and doesn't even bother to switch the players around. And once the seeding has been done, each player gets to influence the results.

Just because you get seeded against someone good doesn't mean you cannot win. I've beaten several people against whom I was a longshot to win simply by being awesome. Instead of whining about getting low seeds, I just got better and then started getting high seeds.

Once the brackets have been created, every single thing that happens in the brackets are entirely up to the players. With items on, no matter how good a player is, they can still lose due to random BS. It is not comparable.

Next inane argument I refuted literally 10 pages ago, please. And next time to feel like bringing something that's already been done before (and I believe you were the one to originally bring it up and then I refuted you), do so only after checking no one already replied to your previous attempt.

 

[flash7]

..., and still result in the more skilled player winning.

I think you have to state 'more skilled' under the terms that it applies.

It would be more like:

..., it will result in the more skilled items player winning.

Its a different set of rules and almost a different game (focus changes slightly), otherwise I believe Ken would have won evo. From the results we know that CPU was the better items player but without items the result would have been different.

I think its pointless for either side to try to enforce their beliefs on to others which seems to be going on here. Just play what you like.

All-Brawl is the future standard if there is a demand for it not whether the SBR, EVO, or whoever says it will be. The players will say it is or it is not.

 

[Yuna]

All-Brawl is the future standard if there is a demand for it not whether the SBR, EVO, or whoever says it will be. The players will say it is or it is not.

Not really. As long as the TOs don't switch to All-Brawl, it will never become the standard. It's up to the TO's. Now the All-Brawlers are free to start a bajillion All-Brawl tournaments and make it a standard that way, but the run-of-the-mill players (i.e. tournament goers) have no say in it.

What? If we don't switch, they won't come? Or more people will come if we switch? Well, we can say that about any number of things. If we banned every single character considered "cheap", more people would come. If we banned every single strat considered "cheap", more people would come. If we allowed all stages, more people would come.

Yaddi, yaddi, yadda.

No, the rules do not change merely because a bunch of people demand they be. They only change if it's pertinent. And they certainly won't change if the community feels the new proposed rules are anti-competitive.

 

[The Real Inferno]

I would like to point out that "creator intent" was obviously meant to be Timed Match as the standard. It's the default setting, the only mode played on Wifi Random and if you notice CPU behavoir, is the type of match their playstyle best lends to (going after most damaged foe and controlling power items in order to score points quickly).

 

[Yuna]

I would like to point out that "creator intent" was obviously meant to be Timed Match as the standard. It's the default setting, the only mode played on Wifi Random and if you notice CPU behavoir, is the type of match their playstyle best lends to (going after most damaged foe and controlling power items in order to score points quickly).

I kinda said that?

 

[The Real Inferno]

You alluded to it, I just elaborated since it's true some people use "creator intent" as an argument for items, when it can be pretty much confirmed that Timed Battle is Sakurai's intent as well.

 

[Yuna]

You alluded to it, I just elaborated since it's true some people use "creator intent" as an argument for items, when it can be pretty much confirmed that Timed Battle is Sakurai's intent as well.

Yes, but then he's also a colossal liar, but we all knew that. He claims in interviews that his intent is for us to all play however wish to. So really, if we want Creator Intent, we'll all be playing Timed 2-minute matches with default settings, default characters and stages (because since they're not available on first boot-up, they're clearly not intended to be played in tournaments. It takes much more time and work to unlock characters than to simply flip some settings around, after all) and, we'd be following the vision of a liar.

 

[IvanEva]

Yes, but then he's also a colossal liar, but we all knew that. He claims in interviews that his intent is for us to all play however wish to.

Which is exactly what happens. All fighting games have options that can be changed around. Third Strike has a good variety of 'System Directions' to really change the game around. I don't see how he's a liar, the options are there. You (and just about all the rest of us here on Smashboards) are not exactly his (or Nintendo's for that matter) target audience. The thousands of other, less dedicated gamers are.

The pro-items argument (at least how I see it) concerning 'creator intent' is that Smash is more enjoyable when you feel like you're using everything that makes Smash different from other fighters, in this case that includes items. The hypocricy with this is that yes, if we wanted full 100% Sakurai Brawl we'd also want to play two minute timed matches. Since nobody (that I know of) wants to do that (not that it's bad, it's just another way to play) we (well, All-Brawl) deviates from the default just enough so that we enjoy it but it's not 100%-pure Creator Intended Brawl. However, it's still closer to it than SBR-Brawl.

 

[Revolver Roosevelt]

I analyze video games much like a New Critic analyzes a book. I believe the same can be said for much of smashboards.

 

[Xiivi]

Sakurai's intent was that this game was not played competitively. His intent was for us to simply enjoy the game and not focus on who wins, just have a few laughs with friends. This is from interviews, Sakurai does not want people playing the game competitively whether it's with items or not. There are no tournament settings that can possibly go with 'creator intent'.

 

[Yuna]

Stuff

The thing is that playing it the way Sakurai inteded us to makes for a broken and uncompetitive game few good players wish to dish out serious money for. We do not want to see randomly spawning items screw people over in important or even unimportant matches.

People can do whatever they want. I'm just telling them why it won't become the standard.

 

[flash7]

Not really. As long as the TOs don't switch to All-Brawl, it will never become the standard. It's up to the TO's. Now the All-Brawlers are free to start a bajillion All-Brawl tournaments and make it a standard that way, but the run-of-the-mill players (i.e. tournament goers) have no say in it.

What? If we don't switch, they won't come? Or more people will come if we switch? Well, we can say that about any number of things. If we banned every single character considered "cheap", more people would come. If we banned every single strat considered "cheap", more people would come. If we allowed all stages, more people would come.

Yaddi, yaddi, yadda.

No, the rules do not change merely because a bunch of people demand they be. They only change if it's pertinent. And they certainly won't change if the community feels the new proposed rules are anti-competitive.

I see what you mean, but Id say that the TOs in the end are influenced by the players (tournament players). If the players wanted All Brawl or whatever brawl they would most likely lean towards hosting that type of tournament.

 

[Yuna]

I see what you mean, but Id say that the TOs in the end are influenced by the players (tournament players). If the players wanted All Brawl or whatever brawl they would most likely lean towards hosting that type of tournament.

No, why would they? If they themselves dislike All-Brawl rules and if they view them as anti-Competitive, why would they employ them just because a lot of people whine about it?

If so many people want All-Brawl tournaments, they're free to host them on their own. No one's going to stop them.

 

[Flowbeat]

seriously host your own dang tourneys if you want or finds others like you who will thats the only way all-brawl could ever catch on

 

[Revolver Roosevelt]

Let me rephrase the title of this topic:

Is everything the entire competitive smash scene knows wrong? Does a single person who has been playing less than a year and who wasn't even able to make the top 32 of a 60~ person brawl tourney know more about the game than the competitive scene?

Honestly, between this, the 7+ years of smash hate that the group All-Brawl caters to has been giving out, and Keits's antagonism towards quite literally over 95% of the competitive scene, there's no reason NOT to be upset. Before the people behind the failure that was EVO Brawl basically said "SCREW YOU " to the smash scene, a fair majority of the posters on the brawl boards favored the well-structured playstyle we know and love. Now I only see a handful of spiteful men posting stuff that might as well be considered trolling. No, the members were not "converted," they simply gave up on the boards! Check the item-related topics on SRK's comparatively empty Brawl Boards: the people there, even moderators(especially moderators) HATE Smashboards, along with all the people sympathetic to our ideals. I don't see a scene backed largely by people who hate the vast majority of the competitive Brawl players could ever make it off the ground.

 

[hippyman69]

Answer to the title of this topic:

No. Just no. Make your own crappy item tourney's. Just gtfo.

/thread

P.S. Anymore discussion is just beating a dead horse. Seriously. No-one agrees, so lets agree to disagree and the pro-item tards can gtfo and play their tourneys.